On Thu, May 16, 2002, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:15:47PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > > > Are you trying to separate the hardware specific portions of the device > > > from the "logical" portions? (I think this is your main point, right?) > > > > > > If so, this patch _might_ work, but I'd like to get Johannes to look at > > > it in light of uhci.c. > > > > uhci.c is safe since it doesn't implement a deallocate() call. usb-uhci > > is safe as well because of the unlink_urbs (or whatever it's called) call. > > > > I think the patch that David proposed to move deallocate() into > > usb_disconnect() should go into 2.5 and 2.4 since it's needed to make the > > code safe. That will be immediately make the code safe at the cost of some > > complexity in some HCD's. > > So do you recommend that I add this patch, the way it is?
I took a look at it (ref-fixup.patch) and I'm not exactly sure why the usb_put_bus call got moved as well. David, could you explain why that's necessary? Other than that, the patch looks correct. I think some testing should be done first to make sure no one has overlooked anything. JE _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
